When the U.S. Senate returns to work in a couple weeks, one item should be on top of the agenda: Finally passing a shield law for reporters.

The Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press
August 31, 2010

When the U.S. Senate returns to work in a couple weeks, one item should be on top of the agenda: Finally passing a shield law for reporters.

The legislation, which would provide qualified protections for reporters against subpoenas that seek the identities of anonymous sources, has been stalled in Congress for six years, despite overwhelming bipartisan support for its passage. Lawmakers need to get it passed, or risk more delay as the political season paralyzes legislative action.

Complicating the debate this summer has been the website Wikileaks. The site released loads of classified material from an anonymous source regarding the war in Afghanistan. Indiscriminate document dumps, which may not thoroughly vet information for potential threats to U.S. security or U.S. soldiers, do not deserve the same protections as other news reporting. Wikileaks is a unique organization in that it operates without a physical address, and would therefore not be covered by this proposed shield law.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have said they will introduce an amendment to the carefully crafted shield legislation to exempt organizations like Wikileaks from coverage. The amendment would likely prohibit shield protections for groups that set raw information before the public.

Defining the legal difference between Wikileaks and other groups will prove tricky. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, have supported a shield law in the past. They should make certain that the provisions written to address Wikileaks-like groups don't gut an otherwise effective piece of legislation.

The legislation seeks to enable news gathering by providing legal protections for confidential sources. Anonymous sources have provided crucial information in a long line of stories, from Watergate to Enron to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. However, whistle blowers are less likely to come forward to reveal information about powerful people in the government and business worlds if they know they could face exposure in court.

A sizable number of subpoenas aimed at reporters in recent years threatens to chill those revelations. So does the imprisonment of reporters who have endured jail time rather than giving up confidential informants. The District of Columbia and 49 states, including Michigan, have shield laws in place. The vast majority of state attorneys general support the federal legislation. An absence of shield standards at the national level has sent federal court rulings all over the map on the issue of reporters and anonymous sources.

The proposed shield law passed overwhelmingly in the House -- 398-21 -- and had broad support in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Six years of back-and-forth with two administrations has built into the bill sensible exceptions for national security and criminal prosecutions. This legislation would not shield terrorists or law-breakers against exposure.

But it would protect people who want to shine the light on lowdown dealings in high places. That makes this the right thing to do. The nation should not have to wait any longer for the Senate to do it.